Category Archives: Judges

On the wall of a friend of mine, there was discussion going around. Gay marriage being in the court, every one has it’s opinion. A friend’s friend’s opinion was laws have been previously derived from the religion (for that being the Christian religion). I divide my answer in two portions, one is just religion and country’s laws.

As for respect of religion in making laws. Today many unfortunately are little quick in dismissing anything that comes from the religion. Almost all the religions are great source of information and knowledge (at least some parts of all of them). Both religious and anti-religious people ignore the fact that all the religions have changed with the time. They might be divine but their current shapes are due to human reasoning.

Scholars and philosophers have debated what is the meaning of the message of revelations. Why certain interpretation is more correct than other, why one should be more beneficial to society and what view will be more helpful to a person . In the process they have defined and refined it. Their debates and explanations are education for us. Religions being the books of constitution for so many centuries will always be referenced.Ignoring them is will be ignoring efforts and works of great minds.

Question is should “All” the laws be continued to be derived from religion or not. I am not American so my point of view might not matter what American society needs, but I am sharing my point of view because this issue is going to become big issue in the countries which have not legally accepted this.

Problem with the religion is there are huge number of versions of every single religion (Catholic, Protestants Suni, Shia, Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews, Hindus who believe in one Veda and not others). One might say they are all (all versions of Ibrahimic religions) are together on this issue of gays, they don’t accept it (there is still debate whether they ask society to punish them). Accepting one law just because some religion tell you, will create logical fallacy Like any mathematician or law professor will tell you once you accept the one law just because it is coming from XYZ-religion, we set precedence that could be used to add more laws belonging to religion XYZ. It breaks the rules, is muddles the axioms.

Either religion should be used to make all the laws or it should not be, if we want a system that accepts part of religion to be made into law but not the other part, we end up with complex set of rules. Such rules will always be pushed to be changed and that’s what is going around right now. Let me give you example we don’t have now the punishment for infidelity or adultery and I don’t believe anyone wants that to become one, but what’s the logic behind it if we are accepting marriage should be defined by religion then what about infidelity? Or what about the people belonging to other religions? should they be burned on stakes?

I am fine with any nation saying they want XYZ to be national religion, thinking we can have non-religious state where XYZ is major religion is just wrong. But sir, if it is not (which quite clearly today’s America is not) then instead enforcing religion through laws and courts you have to go back to people and make them believe in what you believe in. Same goes with the civil rights, you cannot get civil rights by laws, you get them by having size able population believing in what you believe.

In terms of , My point has always being “marriage” as a word has been something that has been derived from the religion. I don’t want government to do anything with “marriage”, in the least that word should be removed from the law books. Government should issue some nicer version of “civil union” and declare we don’t do marriages. If you want to marry, go to Churche, Masjid, Synagogue, Gurdwara or any other religious entity you want to and which ever version of it you want to. if they want benefits they can register with government and government will not discriminate against people regardless of gender, cast, belief, orientation, etc. ….

Interesting and serious situation has developed in Pakistan. One of the province is now being run by governor with provincial govt. resigned. Hundreds of protesters are being led in capital Islamabad by “suddenly appearing” cleric demanding assemblies be dissolved. And now the Supreme Court has ordered that PM be arrested and presented in front of court.

I have been little away from the situation so don’t know why is he being arrested. I know in what case he is being arrested, but “why” is big question. Has he being charged? if yes, then by whom? Attorney General of his own govt.? Or the court is just asking him for the appearance? Is he being arrested for the questioning and investigation?

With it the KSE has plunged 500 points, things are going from serious to worse quite quickly. With the court time already ended (or near the end) getting a pre-arrest bail will be impossible. So how the police handles this situation? Will PM has to be arrested? or he can just present himself to the court in the morning?

To me question is What was court thinking????? Without indictment you are arresting PM??? under what rule and for what purpose? just for questioning? He is PM, he is there, he could be ordered to appear for the questioning.

As 14th of Aug is coming, you will see huge number of messages, facebook pages and websites about being proud Pakistani, there will be pictures of faces covered by flag paint, there will huge flags themselves. And as usual like anyother year we will keep liking them, forwarding them or commenting on them.

I invite you to do something different, that is write about Pakistan and increase Pakistan’s presence on electronic map.

There is extreme deficiency of information regarding Pakistan. Try searching any urdu poem, you will not find any reliable source and most probably you will not find the poem or ghazal if it is not famous. Try googling some Pakistani authors and search result will be useless, even Wikipedia will not be able to provide you any information e.g. search Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi and the Wikipedia page is quite pathetic for it. Bano Qudsia wikipage has less information than some semi famous English song, same is true for other authors.

Search some Pakistani song and you will not find it’s lyrics or information about who wrote it, who is musician, when it was recorded, etc…. Same is true about the Films and actors (Wahid Murad appears to be exception, whose Wikipedia page is quite detailed).

Try searching about 12 Oct. Army overtake by Musharaf, there is no information about timeline of events, look at Kashmir Earthquake you will not find about the huge effort done by people all around Pakistan.

And one can forget about any information regarding Pakistani politicians (except few top leaders) or finding about their voting record, career, political leanings, etc……

Just saying that people should know about Pakistan will not take us anywhere,.. most importantly we have to register this information for ourselves and our people.

So if you want to do something about Pakistan, pick your pen or you just pick your keyboard, write about your experience as Pakistani,

Write about any Pakistani author you like or any book you have read

if you can, pick a you-tube clip of some Pakistani drama and give it’s English subtitles

Go to Wikipedia an write about the episodes of Sona-Chandi, Un-Kahi, ….. any drama you like.

Make Wikipedia page about your school, your city, your street or shrine that exists on the corner

Get information about who is your MNA, MPA, put it on Wikipedia.

You are singing any Pakistani song or any ghazal, put it on the web, even if it is single verse

You commonly read Ashfaq Ahmed‘s zavia, translate it into English, even if it single sentence.

You like going to some cafe in Lahore, or visit some place in Karachi or Queta or some other small or big city, …… put it on Wikipedia. Get information and put it there.

Blog about your experience of event in Pakistan

write how you felt about earth quake and how Pakistani’s put their efforts together to help their citizens

write how you felt when Musharaf took over the govt., write about timeline, whatever you remember, put it there. Or were you there when in Lahore high court, when Lahore was under siege during Lawyer movement, chronicle your experience. Or were you part of LUMS and FAST student protests against sacking of Chief Justice? give your day an e-life.

There is not much patriotic zeal in it as it might look, but what you are doing is making your country searchable. You are recording your history, your culture; in small little steps. These small not so important appearing information what makes culture. People write stories, dramas and make movies around these mundane appearing details. You are chipping away ignorance about Pakistan with your small electronic saber.

So pick up a week, lets say a 7th to 14th of Aug. and celebrate Write About Pakistan Week? we write about whether our writing is of good quality is not is another question but we write to take first step and then clean it up as we go.

I first came to know about the Bloody Sunday about 3 years ago, that day I came to know that it is not only we who have their near past dotted with blood of our people; the list is full with developed nations also. Today they have shown the difference between them and us.

Thirty eight years after the incident, today the report has come telling us that those who were killed were not carrying guns and soldiers were not under threat. British news papers are saying this has given rise to chance that soldiers might be prosecuted, who knows they will ever be, but atleast Prime Minister has apologized.

And I am sitting here waiting for my Prime Minister to endorse mistakes committed in East Pakistan. I want an apology of putting our troops in a position that they became responsible of killing the ones they were hired to defend. I want them to apologize for delay and prosecute the killers of this nations democracy.

Well I take back what I said, infact I don’t even want an apology, I just want an investigation and acknowledgment that mistakes were done so that process could be changed.

I want details of how Bugti died and how the Lal Masjid were allowed to bunker up in the Capital. I want to know what happened in Swat and what is going around in Baluchistan. I want reports on Karachi Operation, how many people died and how many people went missing, details of their deaths, details of operations, details of arrests, details of conviction. I want to know who placed containers on the roads during Chief Justice’s visit to Karachi?

And don’t throw at me the supporter comment, does British Prime Minister’s apology means he is siding with terrorism? Does this means he is supporting dismemberment of his country?

I look around the Muslim world and find I am not the only one, be any country which proudly calls itself Muslim, it’s hands are busy in suffocating their own people. When people talk about Extraordinary Rendition, I mostly ask my countrymen why do they think Muslim countries were chosen as destinations? might be because our governments themselves practice the brutality as the form of everyday business?

Don’t you say no! look at your law enforcement agencies. How many of us are comfortable in dealing with them, even when we know we are aggrieved party how many of us want to go and report the crime?

From what I have heard, Chief Justice of Pakistan wants to elevate Justice Saqib Nisar to Supreme Court where as Govt. wants (more specifically it appears President of Pakistan wants) Chief Justice of Lahore Hight Court Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif.

What I have heard that it appears Chief Justice has more say in who’s to be elevated to the Supreme Court. However what has concerned me more is Why Chief Justice wants a specific person to be in the Supreme Court and not the other one?

Is Justice Khawaja Sharif (Chief Justice of Lahore) less competent than Justice Saqib Nisar? or is it just personal preference?

If it is based on merit that I will be really interested in knowing why a Chief Justice of Lahore is less competent that his junior.

On the legal grounds, to me atleast it appears Cheif Justice of Pakistan has more firm standing because Govt. has to take the Supreme Court’s recommendation, which it has become evident that they have not taken. But the Supreme Court has to explain what is the criteria in which a person is elevated to this highly prestigious institution. Just because you are legally right does not make a decision right.

Just because you can do something does not make it a correct decision.

He must explain why he is not picking the senior most judge to the Supreme Court. What is the mechanism of such process?

Question so important for the people of Pakistan and it is without answer.

I dont know answer, what I know is that our decision should be unanimous. Unanimous is the silver bullet, its the solution. How difficult is to get? Extremely extremely difficult; even in the room full of educated, knowing and honest people its difficult and impossible.

But in this situation there is something we know what will not happen, its unanimous that there will not be complete boycott. There will be vote-casting either for the PML(N) or PPP or in the worst case for the Musharaf but there would be.

So what will happen now in the present scenario if we dont vote? We will just help dictator’s party.

But then I question my self what if the long lines of the people are just the used for propaganda for free and fare election while results are manipulated in the background?

For this I dont have answer. The answer I have is that if I had been in Pakistan I would have gone for voting.

I know that PML(N) and PPP have made unwise decision for participating in the election, but now they have decided to enter the ring the only option I have is to either support the ring masters or them. I will support them even while I dont feel good in supporting them, they are not much different from the ring masters, but they atleast require me for their existence.

But like many questions in Pakistan, there is no perfect answer and what decision is correct and what is wrong depends on the future.

I know one thing after the election the student/civil-society activism will become more important, they will be the force ready for battle and then political parities will need them to put pressure on the government. They are the only threat to government and every party will play card with Musharaf that if their terms are not agreed they will become part of those who are protesting.

Background: On November 3rd, 2007, General Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan and its Chief of the Army Staff at the time, declared a state of Emergency and issued a “Provisional Constitutional Order” (PCO). Under the PCO, General Musharraf suspended that country’s 1973 Constitution depriving the people of Pakistan of their fundamental rights and preventing the actions of his government to be challenged in the Courts. The justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan were ordered to take a fresh oath to abide by the PCO. The Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and seven other justices issued their own legal order calling General Musharraf’s declaration of Emergency unlawful and urged the military officials not to act on unlawful orders. General Musharraf then dismissed CJ Chaudhry and in his place swore in a pro-Musharraf member of the Supreme Court as the new Chief Justice. It should be noted that CJ Chaudhry was earlier dismissed by General Musharraf in March 2007 but was later reinstated as Chief Justice by a special bench of the Supreme Court.
In late November 2007, President Musharraf sent a Special Delegation to makes its official case in various cities in the United States including New York and WashingtonDC. The delegation comprised of Mr. Nasim Ashraf (Minister of State and Chairman of National Commission for Human Development), Barrister Mohammad Ali Saif (Minister of Tourism and Youth Affairs) & Ms. Kashmala Tariq (Former Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan). What follows are rebuttals to some of their mis-statements at an event at Asia Society in New York on Friday November 30, 2007. The event was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and was moderated by Ambassador Nicholas Platt, President Emeritus of Asia Society and US Ambassador to Pakistan from 1991 to 1992. The audio of the event was made available by Asia Society on their website:http://www.asiasociety.org/resources/pakemergency.html.

While listening to the tape, it becomes quite apparent rather quickly that the main target of this delegation was the Supreme Court of Pakistan and its deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Several mis-statements were made specifically with regards to the person of CJ Chaudhry in order to discredit him. The main objective of the delegation was to make a case that the pre-emergency Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by CJ Chaudhry, does not deserve to be reinstated under any circumstances.

Mis-statement # 1: The Supreme Court of Pakistan was releasing terrorists
Barrister Saif and Mr. Ashraf argued that the Supreme Court was releasing terrorists. Specifically, Barrister Saif stated that “Chaudhry after being reinstated took missing person’s case in which persons were ‘allegedly’ involved in terrorist activities.” (34:05)

Rebuttal: The Supreme Court never ordered the release of any person charged with any crime. Instead, it addressed a petition filed by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) with the names of 485 individuals who had simply disappeared. Barrister Saif acknowledges on the tape that these people were “alleged” terrorists. These people had been picked up by Pakistan‘s intelligence agencies and had never been heard of again. Many of these people have been held without being charged for years. Many apparently have no connection to terrorism, but have no way of proving their innocence since the government does not even acknowledge holding them. At the request of the HRCP, the Supreme Court demanded that the basic right of Habeas Corpus be observed, and that these missing people be produced in court, and properly charged with crimes or offenses. In those instances where the intelligence agencies and the government were unable to provide any charge or supply even the most basic evidence against such individuals, the Courts ordered their release. There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court demanding that, as per Pakistan‘s Constitution, any person in government custody be charged with a crime, and tried for it.

Mis-statement # 2: The Supreme Court ordered the re-opening of the Red Mosque
Barrister Saif stated that a two member bench of the Supreme Court ordered the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) to be opened.

Rebuttal: The two-member bench of the Supreme Court that ordered the reopening of the Lal Masjid was comprised of two judges who later took the oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) after the emergency was declared by General Musharraf on Nov 3rd. It is clear that those two judges, Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi and Justice Javed Buttar, are loyal to President Musharraf and it is not difficult to conjecture that these two “government judges” were instructed to issue such orders as a way of constructing a charge sheet against the Supreme Court and CJ Chaudhry.

Mis-statement # 3: The necessary military action in NWFP province was not possible without declaring Emergency on Nov 3rd
Mr. Ashraf argued that the Musharraf government needed the NWFP provincial government’s written approval to send military troops into Swat and because such an approval was not provided the Emergency declared on Nov 3rd was necessary for the military to carry on its operations in Swat.

Rebuttal: The NWFP provincial government had resigned and the provincial assembly was dissolved prior to Nov 3rd. The central government already had full authority to send the military into Swat before Nov 3rd and it did not need to declare Emergency on Nov 3rd to do so. Even the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) told several representatives of the media at a briefing at Military General Head Quarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi soon after Nov 3rd that the Emergency was not needed for the Swat operation. The GHQ briefing was attended by leading journalists and TV anchors including Ayesha Haroon, Nasim Zehra, Talat Hussain, Zaffar Abbas, Najam Sethi, Ejaz Haider, Kamran Khan and Shafqat Mahmood. It should be noted that President Musharraf and the newly appointed Army Chief General Kiyani both held the DGMO post earlier in their military careers. It should therefore be quite clear that when it comes to military matters, the DMGO has lot more pertinent knowledge compared to a civilian like Mr. Ashraf.

Mis-statement # 4: There was a long list of charges against Chief Justice Chaudhry
Barrister Saif and Mr. Ashraf stated the there was a long list of charges against CJ Chaudhry when he was initially deposed in March 2007.

Rebuttal:
These charges had their day in court, and were dismissed unanimously by an 11 member bench of the Supreme Court. Yet Barrister Saif continues to malign the Chief Justice by bringing them up. Specifically, these charges were the subject of a several months long proceeding before a full bench of the Supreme Court. During the proceedings the bench not only unanimously rejected the charges, but also dismissed them as being filed with mala fide (i.e. malicious) intent, and as being false on face value. Indeed, the government actually tendered a formal apology to the Supreme Court for several of the accusations which were false on their face, and were remarkably fined Rs. 100,000 for making baseless allegations. The credibility of these charges and thus the integrity of the Chief Justice can be judged by the fact that, last month, HarvardLawSchool awarded Chief Justice Chaudhry its highest award, the Medal of Freedom. The most immediate past recipients of this award were Nelson Mandela, and the legal team which argued Brown vs. The Board of Education. In addition, the New York City Bar Association, in another vote of confidence in the integrity of the Chief Justice, has awarded him an honorary lifetime membership. This rare honor was last given to the late Chief Justice Rehnquist of the US Supreme Court.

Mis-statement # 5: Chief Justice Chaudhry was making political speechesBarrister Saif stated that after CJ Chaudhry was first deposed in March 2007, he went around the country making political speeches at Bar Association events. He also stated that those events were political in nature with flags of all political parties flying in one place. (52:00)
Rebuttal: The Bar Association event organizers only allowed lawyers who were members to attend the events with CJ Chaudhry. Members of political parties were not invited at these events. CJ Chaudhry made all his speeches regarding human rights and did not touch on political matters. There is no evidence whatsoever that CJ Chaudhry made any political speeches.

Mis-statement # 6: Chief Justice Chaudhry was planning on running for President
Barrister Saif alleged that Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, who was CJ Chaudhry’s lawyer after he was first sacked in March 2007, had stated that CJ Chaudhry was planning on starting a “Justice Party” and CJ Chaudhry would be its presidential candidate. (52:30)
Rebuttal: Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan or CJ Chaudhry never made any comments regarding any new party or about CJ Chaudhry running for President. Like all other public servants, CJ Chaudhry cannot run for public office till two years after his retirement from the Supreme Court, as stated in the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan. President Musharraf broke that law by running for President while still in a military uniform. The legal challenges against his actions were pending in the Supreme Court when he declared the Emergency on Nov 3rd.

Mis-statement # 7: None of the Supreme Court Judges are under house arrest
Barrister Saif stated that CJ Chaudhry and other judges are not under house arrest and there is no written order for their arrest. (38:09)
Rebuttal: CJ Chaudhry can’t get out of his house which is under heavy police guard and his closest relatives are not allowed to see him. CJ Chaudhry’s daughter was due to take her O-Levels exams and the British High Commission arranged for her to take her exams at CJ Chaudhry’s house as she was not allowed to leave the house by the police. Even the moderator of the Asia Society event, Ambassador Nicholas Platt, told Barrister Saif that the judges were indeed under house arrest. In addition, US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson was not allowed by the police to meet with Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan who is also under house arrest after two weeks in solitary confinement in a prison. (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=11535)

Mis-statement # 8: A leading Pakistani journalist said that the Supreme Court was to blame for the declaration of emergency
Mr. Ashraf quoted Mr. Najam Sethi of The Friday Times from an article where Mr. Sethi blamed CJ Chaudhry and the Supreme Court for pushing President Musharraf to a point where he had to declare the Emergency on Nov 3rd.

Rebuttal: Najam Sethi is indeed considered one of the prominent journalists of Pakistan but he is clearly in the very tiny minority among Pakistan‘s influential journalists. The following journalists who are as widely read as Najam Sethi have strongly criticized President Musharraf for his Nov 3rd actions and lay the blame fully at his feet: Ayaz Amir, Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Hasan Askari Rizvi, Nasim Zehra, Shafqat Mahmood, Tariq Fatemi & Zahid Hussain. The overwhelming majority of respected journalists are against President Musharraf’s declaration of the Emergency, including those who were previously somewhat sympathetic to him.

Mis-statement #9: Mr. Saif is a “neutral” member of the caretaker government
Barrister Saif stated in response to a question over the internet that he is a “neutral” member of the caretaker government installed by President Musharraf because he does not belong to a political party.

Rebuttal: Barrister Saif is not neutral. He was an Advisor to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs during the previous PML-Q government supported by President Musharraf. At the Asia Society event, he made the case in defense of the previous PML-Q government and blasted several major political parties in Pakistan as well as the lawyers, Supreme Court and the media. In every country of the world, except under the emergency in Pakistan, such a person is considered “biased”. Barrister Saif should be immediately removed from the “neutral” caretaker government and so should others belonging to the PML-Q party who are considered loyal to President Musharraf.

Mis-statement #10: International observers are welcome to come monitor electionsMs. Tariq stated that “we welcome western observers to monitor the elections.” (50:58)

Rebuttal:US government has officially raised serious concerns that foreign election observers willing to rush to Pakistan are being denied visas by the Pakistan embassies, a matter which has been raised at the level of President Musharraf and caretaker Prime Minister Muhammed Mian Soomro. US Ambassador Anne W. Patterson held an urgent meeting with the caretaker PM to raise the issue while a delegation of US Congressmen, who called on General Pervez Musharraf on Friday, also informed him that visas were being denied to election observers. (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=11475)

Mis-statement # 11: President Musharraf would not have to face the death penalty
Mr. Ashraf stated in response to a question that while he agreed that under the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan, a military coup or martial law is punishable by death as its considered mutiny, President Musharraf was off the hook because the (hand-picked pro-Musharraf) judiciary post the coup in 1999 had upheld the coup and a 2/3rd majority of parliament (constituted after elections in 2002 which were considered by most to be massively rigged) had also condoned his actions.

Rebuttal: President Musharraf could still face the death penalty if the 1973 Constitution is reinstated. On Oct 12, 1999 the then-elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif sacked General Musharraf under powers vested in him by the Constitution of 1973 and replaced him with another general. Mr. Musharraf who was no longer the Chief of the Army as a result of the PM’s actions, later that day took the unlawful step of a military coup with the help of other military generals and breached Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution. The 1973 Constitution of Pakistan can indeed be amended by a 2/3rd majority of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies but Article 6 has not been amended or deleted even by the pro-Musharraf government and it still states that a military coup is punishable by death without any statute of limitations. Therefore, President Musharraf could still face the death penalty for his actions on Oct 12, 1999. In addition, his actions on Nov 3, 2007 when he declared an emergency and revoked the 1973 Constitution (for the second time) are also punishable by death under the 1973 Constitution. As a matter of fact, President Musharraf recently admitted in a BBC interviews that he had in fact violated the 1973 Constitution on Nov 3rd. Since the Constitution cannot be amended until after it is reinstated and only an elected Parliament and Provincial Assemblies with 2/3rds majority have the right to amend it, the question at Asia Society by a member of the audience highlighted the lack of legal protection that President Musharaf would have under a reinstated 1973 Constitution. This could be one reason why President Musharraf does not want the pre-emergency Supreme Court and CJ Chaudhry to be restored.